Iwanski: No violation of rules occurred

Monday

Oct 28, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Anderson County Commissioner Myron Iwanski of Oak Ridge is refuting that he acted incorrectly in attempting to present resolutions aimed at dealing with jail problems during Monday’s Commission meeting.

Donna Smith/The Oak Ridger

Anderson County Commissioner Myron Iwanski of Oak Ridge is refuting that he acted incorrectly in attempting to present resolutions aimed at dealing with jail problems during Monday’s Commission meeting.

He also contends that the motion to discuss the issue was approved — not voted down. He asked for a special-called meeting at which the Commission could discuss intervening in the legal battle between Sheriff Paul White and County Mayor Terry Frank.

Iwanski attempted to make resolutions to instruct White to hire 36 jailers for the new jail expansion and for officials to begin to make arrangements for federal inmates to be housed at the jail, which would reportedly bring in more revenue to operate the jail.

However, Mayor Frank said since no action on these resolutions had been taken at the Operations Committee at which the issue was brought up, Iwanski’s actions were in violation of the Commission’s rules. The Commission then began discussing adding the issue of the resolutions to the Commission’s agenda for discussion, which would have been the first step in making the resolution.

After much discussion to discuss the matter, the Commission voted down the motion Monday by a vote of 12-3.

Iwanski, in a letter he sent to commissioners and the media later Monday afternoon stated:

“I wanted to bring to your attention some seriously incorrect rules interpretations related to today’s discussion of the county intervening in the legal battle between the sheriff and the mayor.

“First, our rules are very clear that once an issue has been brought to a committee, it can be brought before full commission for a vote. Last month, I brought this issue to the Operations Committee and after some discussion it was referred to full commission. It was listed on the agenda under the Law Director’s report. My written request was sent to each commissioner, the mayor, the sheriff and was even reported in local papers — so this is no surprise/last minute request. In our meeting, the Mayor’s interpretation of our rules is that we could not bring it up, and the parliamentarian (Commissioner Dusty Irwin) agreed with her. I believe this interpretation is incorrect. This item had been through committee and referred to full commission and should have been allowed to be voted on by full commission under committee reports.

“Secondly, after the parliamentarian improperly ruled that it could not be voted under the Operations Committee report, the parliamentarian ruled that the motion to put it on the agenda needed 12 votes. It had 11 votes and per his interpretation the vote to put it on the agenda was ruled as failed. This interpretation is clearly wrong. Our rules say it requires 11 votes. The parliamentarian should have ruled that it passed.

“Thirdly, during the discussion on whether this issue should be put on the agenda, the parliamentarian wanted to discuss the merits of renting beds to federal inmates. This discussion was ruled out of order by the chair because it is not relevant to the motion on the floor. The parliamentarian argued that he should be allowed by rule to discuss matters not relevant to the motion the motion on the floor. Roberts rules are very clear that once a motion is made the discussion must be germane to the motion on the floor.”

“I do not understand the Mayor’s and the parliamentarian’s resistance to us bringing this matter up and trying to find a common sense resolution. Because of the importance of this issue and the need to resolve it promptly, and because of the serious errors noted above in interpreting our rules regarding this matter, I ask that the chair consider calling a special called meeting of the County Commission (when the Law Director is available) to take up the county intervening in this case, including considering the two motions I presented to the Operation Committee last week that were referred to full commission. Clearly with an 11 to 3 vote the vast majority of commission is willing to discuss and try to resolve this matter and avoid the ever increasing cost of this dispute between the Mayor and Sheriff.”

Iwanski has repeatedly said that Sheriff White’s lawsuit against Mayor Frank will end up costing the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The county budget for this fiscal year includes approximately $750,000 for paying 15 new jailers for a full year. Commissioners, during budget deliberations earlier this year, said the sheriff could use the same amount to employ 36 jailers for a half-year since the new jail expansion is not slated to open until December or early 2014. This came after Sheriff White said more jailers than 15 were needed for the jail expansion. Commissioners said funds to employ those 36 new jailers would likely come from fees paid by the government to house state and federal inmates in the jail.

However, Mayor Frank refused to sign the sheriff’s salary petition that included the 36 jailers, saying it would commit the county an additional $1.1 million the following year — to pay the 36 for a full year — and she could be ousted from office for doing that. He then filed suit against her.

Donna Smith can be contacted at (865) 220-5502.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.